Search News


Browse Archives

News

Loan Guarantor and Attorney General Settle in N.J.

February 18, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

New Jersey's attorney general and the state's student loan agency have reached an agreement that ends an investigation into arrangements in which two lenders paid the state guarantor millions of dollars for loans that the agency helped direct the lenders’ way.

Attorney General Anne Milgrim and U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) had announced last May that they were examining the legality of arrangements in which the New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority received about $2.2 million a year from Sallie Mae and the National Education Loan Network (Nelnet) as a cut of the volume of each loan referred to the lenders by the agency. That revelation came amid the steady stream of accusations against allegedly improper incentives given by student loan providers to colleges and financial aid officers, but represented the first allegation involving such an arrangement involving guarantors. The agency had ended the deal weeks before the revelation by Kennedy.

Under the accord announced Thursday by Milgrim's office, which largely affirmed changes in practice that the New Jersey had already adopted over the last year, the New Jersey agency agreed to use about $7.8 million it had received from the lenders to increase benefits for students. The voluntary agreement says that the agency, known as HESAA, can spend the money to lower student loan interest rates, pay default fees, or provide scholarships or loan forgiveness programs.

The voluntary agreement also imposes a state-approved independent "monitor" to oversee the guarantee agency's compliance with the agreement for a year. The term "monitor" has taken on a loaded meaning in the Garden State of late, given the imposition in 2005 of a federal monitor to oversee the financial and administrative operations of the scandal-ridden University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.

The monitor imposed on HESAA is designed to play a less intrusive role than the UMDNJ overseer, although Milgrim, the attorney general, said in an interview Friday that the independent official would be "closely watching the way that [agency officials] conduct business."

Officials at the guarantee agency, while agreeing to the arrangement as part of the voluntary agreement, have expressed concern that the existence of the monitor will diminish investor confidence in the agency. But Milgrim said she envisioned it having the opposite effect.

"It is important for HESAA going forward that the public have confidence that they have agreed to change their rules, and that somebody is making sure that that change is effectuated over the next year," Milgrim said. "It speaks volumes and should be a really positive sign to the public that they know that conflicts have been taken out of the [student loan] industry. It means this agreement has real teeth."

Officials of the New Jersey guarantor put out their own news release that put a different shading on the agreement signed with the attorney general. It notes that it had adopted the vast majority of changes agreed to in the settlement with the attorney general -- including ending its arrangements with the lenders and certain other marketing practices, adopting a Code of Conduct, hiring a chief compliance officer -- on its own during the last nine months.

“We are pleased, but not surprised, that our efforts to address the Attorney General’s concerns have been successful, resulting in this mutually agreeable resolution that allows us to continue to focus entirely on serving New Jersey students and families,” E. Michael Angulo, the agency's executive director, said in a prepared statement.

Milgrim's office also announced Thursday that 41 colleges in the state had voluntarily agreed to sign the code of conduct that she distributed to all New Jersey public and private institutions last fall. She said another four are in negotiations to endorse the code, which bars lender payments to financial aid offices, staffing of financial aid offices by loan providers, and "opportunity loans" from lenders to students who would not otherwise qualify for student loans.

The attorney general said that 11 other colleges in the state had adopted their own codes of conduct (which her office is reviewing to ensure that they largely mirror her proposed code), and that at least 9 institutions that had not adopted the code were still under investigation for possible improper financial aid practices. "Are there schools that we have concerns about? Yes."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Loan Guarantor and Attorney General Settle in N.J.

  • What about the students?
  • Posted by Alan Collinge , Founder at Studentloanjustice.org on February 18, 2008 at 4:30am EST
  • I'd like to see that agreement. My intuition tells me that the guarantor will sink that money back into their own pockets, and return only negligible real help to the borrowers.

    And what about the students who were steered towards these loans, many of whom defaulted, and became cash cows for the guaranty agency? Where is the justice for them?

    The settlements reached thus far have benefited funds administered by State Attorney General's Offices, and may help future students somewhat looking ahead, but are we to believe that any of this will actually trickle down to where there is real relief provided to borrowers who have been railroaded into default, and now face loan balances far and away higher than what they originally borrowed?

    When are the states going to demand the return of the standard consumer protections to student loans that have been systematically stripped away over the past couple of decades? At this point, it appears that the federal government (both Congress and the Department of Education) is unwilling to do this, so it can only be hoped that the states will begin to step up, as AG. Cuomo rightly pointed out recently.

  • Jersey business as usual
  • Posted by anon. on February 18, 2008 at 10:35am EST
  • In the whole student loan scandal, no one nationwide benefited more than NJ's guarantee agency...over $2M a year for 7 years, and what's more, they got this money by throwing the students and schools they supposedly serve under the bus, by coercing them away from the far more taxpayer-friendly Direct Lending program and turning them into Sallie Mae shops (sometimes with political pressure in the college president's office). Now there are 55 colleges nationwide facing US Department of Ed investigation and possible sanctions because they steered virtually all their borrowers to one lender without choice. A very disproportionate 5 of those 55 are among those who were NJHESAA's "partners."

    But this is just the way politics and money and power all coexist in Jersey. The choice-less students got their loans from a company with a horrible reputation for borrower service. The schools who took the bait from NJHESAA wound up with the Feds breathing down their necks. And NJHESAA gets the tiniest little slap on the wrist...they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and their big punishment is no more cookies.

  • SO NOW WHAT
  • Posted by LR , PRO CHOICE on February 18, 2008 at 12:10pm EST
  • To the comment "robbed students of a more tax payer friendly loan- Direct Lending" How is CHOICE robbing students of applying for a direct loan? Only Direct Loan schools can deny a student choice. Free choice ffelp schools let students select from a choice of lenders. Even if the main list had Sallie or Nelnet or whatever, students still could bring in a loan application from any lender and the school would process. If they brought that to a DL school, the school could and would deny processing that loan. That loan would offer benefits and interest rate cuts from their loan. DL will not offer such benefits. These benefits help reduce the loan for the student. Schools have raised tuition so high that it is basically up to the lenders to try and give some back in the way of interest rate reductions and or borrower benefits.
    More importantly, I want to know what Business as Usual in NJ thinks now that it shows that DL is costing the tax payers 4 times more than ffelp due to all the lender cuts? I guess now you will have a different bone to pick from as long as it is pro DL?
    To Student Loan Justice. I am not sure why every message I read from you is hell bent on being able to file bankrupt on student loans. That makes me think that is really all you care about is being able to get out of your loan. Not sure if that is your bag or not but it sure sounds like it is. Where is the responsibility at for the student to make good decisions on what college they can afford to go to so they are not taking out huge loan debt? We are full of community colleges so that students can select to go to school for their first 2 years at an affordable price. Then their remaining educational needs should be directed towards a school that would afford them little loan money as possible. If you chose to go to a school that is $40k a year for tuition as opposed to a school that is much more in your means, then you have no one to blame but the person in the mirror. Pay your darn loan. There is no loan out there that isn't going to be knocking on your door if you aren't paying. If you feel you should be able to get out of paying for that loan just because the laws will allow you, then shame on you. If you are healthy, get a job and stop filling up space on pages for higher education and use your degree for what you spent so much money on. Hopefully it wasn't cooking classes.
    Bankruptsy hurts tax payers. Defaulted student loans hurt tax payers and sub prime lending hurts tax payers. Think about all three of those. they should only happen if you are disabled, lost a spouse with income, or are not willing to work and pay what you borrowed. If you are not one of the first two, then that means you are the last one.

  • To "Pro Choice"
  • Posted by Jersey Business as Usual on February 18, 2008 at 3:45pm EST
  • OK, if Direct Lending is 4 times as costly to taxpayers as the FFELP industry's fuzzy math says it is, where is the DL money that has made millionaires out of quasi-private sector executives, that a guarantor (a branch of a state government) can receive $15M in lender kickbacks, that schools can receive kickbacks, that financial aid administrators can be treated to lavish parties at conferences or brought to "advisory committee" meetings at exclusive resorts...all at the expense of taxpayers and needy students? Does DL have any money budgeted for those items?

    No, that obscene level of excess cash only exists in FFELP, where the private sector practically goes belly up when their taxpayer-funded corporate welfare gets cut by 2%. No profit-driven lenders, no lender wannabe guarantors - how can anyone still fall for the myth that Direct Lending costs taxpayers more money?

  • and one more point...
  • Posted by Jersey Business as Usual on February 18, 2008 at 3:45pm EST
  • And also, Pro Choice, the whole point here is that these schools were brought into the FFELP program and then coerced AGAINST giving their students any choices...they became single-lender operations. So aside from arguments as to what program is better or which one saves taxpayers money, FFELP is supposed to give the borrower his/her choice of lenders, and this scheme hatched by Jersey's guarantee agency completely took that away.

    I think even the most ardent FFELP supporters would agree that's wrong.